EPA Report That Lowers Methane-Leak Estimates Further Divides Fracking Camps

gmfeier writes "The EPA has significantly lowered its estimate of how much methane leaks during natural gas production. This has major implications for the fracking debate, but puts the EPA at odds with NOAA. From the article: 'The scope of the EPA's revision was vast. In a mid-April report on greenhouse emissions, the agency now says that tighter pollution controls instituted by the industry resulted in an average annual decrease of 41.6 million metric tons of methane emissions from 1990 through 2010, or more than 850 million metric tons overall. That's about a 20 percent reduction from previous estimates. The agency converts the methane emissions into their equivalent in carbon dioxide, following standard scientific practice.'"

Comments

I can't

[Anonymous Coward]

Take the article seriously because hearing "the fracking debate" makes me think someone from the BSG is arguing.

Re:I can't

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't take anything about this technology seriously because it's firmly in the realm of the political, not technological.

It could be perfectly safe and it wouldn't matter. Or, more likely, it could be a safe and effective option when done properly, that just needs typical industry oversight and regulation.

But it doesn't matter, people would just claim it's all a corporate conspiracy and the only thing to do is put all our collective efforts into [insert other technology here].

Change in Protocol

[jasnw]

They stopped counting methane released by all that fracking flatulance from the industry's employees.

What 2 camps?

[slashmydots]

They should take all their fracking gear, fracking sell it, and build some fracking wind turbines, solar towers, and solar panel arrays. That's really the only camp out there, assuming everyone allowed to go camping has a basic understanding of chemistry and the atmosphere.

Re:What 2 camps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. The economics of solar and wind will crush gas, natural gas and coal.

Re:What 2 camps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's heat millions of tons of metals and run heavy industry on wind and solar power!

Re:What 2 camps?

[Blaskowicz]

But you can't store the power delivered by those turbines, towers and panels. Can't run a truck on it. Nor can you even use the power you get when suddenly wind power dumps a lot of electricity, close to their max power (which is rare btw) whereas the hour before you were getting squat shit from it.

Barring some ill-defined or expensive solution, all these "renewable" energies require near-line power plants that burn, you name it, frackin' natural gas.

Re:What 2 camps?

[mellon]

Of course you can store the power. What an absurd assertion. We may not have the storage set up right now, but it is eminently storable. You can't run a truck on it, but you certainly _can_ run trains on it.

Re:What 2 camps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Acidic.

Re:What 2 camps?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's imminently storable, but it's not eminently storable. You have no concept of the magnitude of power used in the western world. It's just not plausible with current technology to store enough solar energy for use overnight. There are also some severe scale problems with replacing diesel vehicles with electricity. Large numbers are a bitch, and physics still wins.

Re:What 2 camps?

[Dutchmaan]

Why does everyone assume that renewable energy is an all or nothing thing. Think about when the Wright brothers first flew, you'd have people out there saying things like:

"Yes, let's just transport thousands of people around the world daily on your little flying contraption!" /sarcasm

The *goal* is to make a system that doesn't rely on depletable resources, especially with a population that is continually expanding... you have to start somewhere.

Re:What 2 camps?

[snowjest]

Yes you can store the power. All you need to do is convert the energy into some other form when the sun is shining and release that energy when it is not. Something like the Dinorwig power station in North Wales, UK. Whilst that was built for something very different, (to supply power for short surge demands), the principle holds for storing renewable power. The reason it isn't currently done for renewable power is because the generators get more money from replacing fossil fuel based power generation, than they would do from shifting mega tonnes of water. If there were no fossil fuel based power generation then that would no longer be true. Burning fracked gas is not an option, the long term cost from global warming will be bigger than huge. As for your truck, all it takes is a bit of imagination. Use overhead power cables on the main routes, like trolley buses do, and then run on batteries for the last few miles to your house (I'm guessing you don't live in the wilds as you have access to the Internet - but then again, maybe you're using satellites)

Re:What 2 camps?

[JabberWokky]

Don't worry. The economics of solar and wind will crush gas, natural gas and coal.

But the portability and current infrastructure of petroleum energy is tough to beat. I'd like to see hydrogen do it, but there's still the infrastructure cost to ameliorate -- with the next generation of infrastructure tools likely coming out before the first widely used generation is paid for. It's a tough problem, only easy when you handwave the real concerns (or throw in massively improbable solutions like "we just need to change society", the ultimate universal solvent of non-practical discussions).

Re:What 2 camps?

[Pecisk]

""Yes, let's just transport thousands of people around the world daily on your little flying contraption!" /sarcasm"

Sarcasm or not, that's how awfully lot of people (including some really smart scientists) saw flying in Wright brothers time :)

Re:What 2 camps?

[DMUTPeregrine]

Actually, it IS storable. Pumping water between a high and low reservoir can easily store enough energy. Keeping the pumps reliable and high-volume enough is the challenge.

Re:What 2 camps?

[gewalker]

Actually, cold winters would not be a serious problem for pumped storage. At most, you get an ice layer a few feet thick on top of the water you are storing. You can heat the pipes, etc. as needed to keep them from freezing.

No, collecting getting solar energy will be a problem in the land of the midnight sun. I suppose wind-power would be a viable renewable power source though.

Re:What 2 camps?

[Shirley Marquez]

Moving to solar will likely mean moving to less of a 24/7 economy. We'll have to cut back on nighttime activity. We'll have some nighttime power from wind so the world won't go completely dark at night. As for energy for home heating, storage is a solvable problem. Put a bank of rocks under your house, heat them during the day when energy is available, and use the stored heat to keep the house warm at night. Another energy storage technology - carbon nanotube ultracapacitors - is under development and could solve many of these problems. A device with the energy density of lithium ion batteries but with a lifetime of MILLIONS of charge cycles... if it can be produced at a reasonable price it would eliminate most of the objections to electric vehicles. Reference: http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/ultracapacitor.html

Re:What 2 camps?

[Wonko the Sane]

But the portability and current infrastructure of petroleum energy is tough to beat. I'd like to see hydrogen do it, but there's still the infrastructure cost to ameliorate

Infrastructure is not the problem - thermodynamics is. Hydrogen is not a source of energy, since there isn't any of it laying around that we can use.

Pick one: fission, fusion, or "Little House on the Prarie" standard of living. Wind and solar fall into the last category, by the way.

Re:What 2 camps?

[mellon]

This is a really lame straw-man. Of course in the middle of winter in Alaska solar isn't going to work, but I've been to Anchorage. It's about the size of Brattleboro. We can keep running Anchorage off of fossil fuels while we work on an alternative, while still substantially reducing our carbon footprint in the lower 48. I have no idea what the winds are like up there in the winter, so whether you can generate wind power I don't know, but there's certainly plenty of wide open space to put the turbines.

Re:What 2 camps?

[mellon]

This is kind of ridiculous. Just insulate and seal your house properly and use a heat recovery ventilator, and you won't need fancy heat storage systems, because your house won't cool off as much overnight. If you're going to do a big engineering project, you might as well actually _save_ energy rather than putting in a huge energy storage system and bleeding all that energy out into the night through your poorly insulated, badly sealed walls.

I live in a Passive House in southern Vermont; we spent about $125 on power (total, not just heating) this winter, and it was a reasonably cold winter.

Re:What 2 camps?

[JabberWokky]

Infrastructure is not the problem - thermodynamics is. Hydrogen is not a source of energy, since there isn't any of it laying around that we can use.

Pick one: fission, fusion, or "Little House on the Prarie" standard of living. Wind and solar fall into the last category, by the way.

Or you can use your nice fission, fusion or orbital solar conversion (which does *not* fall into that last category), and make hydrogen. Why? Because then you have a transportable energy... as opposed to transmittable energy, a la power lines. Vehicles, especially those pesky planes, do poorly with extension cords.

To reproduce modern tech with a new energy source, you need to have a transportable energy "fuel". If you have a solid source of power, you can generate hydrogen and carry it from here to there, using it along the way. You're going to be doing it somehow, since the internal chemistry of rechargeable batteries is basically doing the same thing (making transportable energy). Hydrogen just allows separate (and hopefully more efficient) creation, refueling and use processes, rather than putting it all in the same unit, like a rechargeable battery. You can certainly refill an empty fuel cell faster than recharge an empty battery.

Re:What 2 camps?

[Wonko the Sane]

Or you can use your nice fission, fusion or orbital solar conversion (which does *not* fall into that last category), and make hydrogen.

That's exactly what I was talking about.

Industry says don't worry

[mspohr]

From the AP article:
"The EPA said it made the changes based on expert reviews and new data from several sources, including a report funded by the oil and gas industry. But the estimates aren't based on independent field tests of actual emissions, and some scientists said that's a problem."
So... the industry produced a report which claimed it has really cleaned up its act... and we should believe them?

Re:Industry says don't worry

[CrimsonAvenger]

"The EPA said it made the changes based on expert reviews and new data from several sources, including a report funded by the oil and gas industry.

Note the "several sources" and "a report funded by the oil and gas industry".

So, no, it's not just an industry report behind this. It might be *gasp* actual science.

Re:Industry says don't worry

[mspohr]

No, not science... just speculation.
They specifically said that they didn't measure actual field emissions (that's the science part).

Re:Industry says don't worry

[jamstar7]

"The EPA said it made the changes based on expert reviews and new data from several sources, including a report funded by the oil and gas industry.

Note the "several sources" and "a report funded by the oil and gas industry".

So, no, it's not just an industry report behind this. It might be *gasp* actual science.

Those sources were 'expert reviews' of unnamed experts. Where are the peer-reviewed articles? Where are the links that show somebody, anybody did real live science on this instead of an industry-backed report and 'expert reviews'? If it's not peer-reviewed, it's not verifiable.

For instance, I could claim I built a flying saucer in my back yard, complete with working antigravity thrusters and a ftl drive. Without peer review, it would be proper to call me a fake until I proved my work to physicists.

Re:Industry says don't worry

[jamstar7]

No, not science... just speculation. They specifically said that they didn't measure actual field emissions (that's the science part).

The EPA didn't. They took somebody's word that they did the measurements and accepted the results on face value. Considering the main thrust of this is from an industry-backed report, I find it very suspicious.

Re:Industry says don't worry

[HiThere]

It doesn't sound like science to me. Still, a lot can frequently be done with proper reanalysis of the data.

Unfortunately, there have been a few too many similar examples where the "science" turned out to be psychology, sociology, or political science rather than the purported specialty. One thinks, e.g., of Elsevier publishing a Journal that was totally funded by one of the major durg companies, and where all the reviewers worked for that company. It took several years for that one to come to light.

So I'm dubious about the honesty of the revisions, though who whas lying, and who was being deceived, and who was just keepign quiet is a bit difficult to determine.

But it *could* be honest. That's just not the way I would bet.

Re:Industry says don't worry

[nametaken]

So, no, it's not just an industry report behind this. It might be *gasp* actual science.

Fracking is a bullshit political issue now, not a technology issue. Nobody is interested in real information anymore... only rhetoric.

Re:Industry says don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

You accept AGW based on nothing but scientific wild ass guesses in a computer model, why not this?

Less methane? So fracking what?

[danaris]

So there's less methane being released. OK, that's good and all--but it still doesn't address the several other really important problems with fracking.

Like the fact that the toxic chemicals they use to force apart the shale layers are a) basically unknown, b) often left down there, and c) known to be contaminating groundwater in some instances. Or the fact that the gas companies come in, tear up the countryside, create an ecological disaster, make vast amounts of money, and then, when they decide it's no longer worth their time--they just pack up and leave. And the local communities get to deal with the mess for the next 100 years or so.

The basic problem is that there's insufficient regulation here. Preventing companies from exploiting natural resources for tremendous profit while leaving behind a horrific environmental mess--and, in general, preventing privatized profits with socialized costs--is precisely what regulation is best for. The market not only will not deal with these issues, it cannot. It has no way of taking account of the externalities associated with hydrofracking.

Put in place some good common-sense regulation of hydrofracking, with enough teeth to make it actually mean something, and then we can talk about allowing it to happen within 100 miles of my house.

And yes, I live in the northernmost extension of the Marcellus shale in upstate NY, so this issue does affect me personally.

Dan Aris

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[flyingfsck]

Ground water for human consumption comes from the upper 100 meters or so. Gas is produced fro a depth of more than 2000 meters. The water down there is undrinkable toxic brine. Adding some more salts to it makes no big difference and it stays down there, it is not produced to the surface.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[sribe]

The chemical that they use in fracking is well know. It is very dangerous...

Oh yeh, the chemical they pump into the ground that my friend delivers is commonly known as dihydrous-oxide..

Bull. Fucking. Shit. They add all sorts of chemicals into that water before they pump it into the ground.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[Paltin]

Oh no, not chemicals! The vast, vast majority of what is pumped is water.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[sribe]

Oh no, not chemicals! The vast, vast majority of what is pumped is water.

Are you that fucking stupid??? Yes, there's only about 0.5% chemical additives, yes the "vast majority" is water (if you exclude the propants, which are pretty benign). But some of the chemicals are highly toxic, and there's millions of gallons used per fracturing, so you're talking about thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals being pumped into the ground every time.

Widespread contamination has not been demonstrated, but there is as-yet unquantified risk--and examples of contamination.

So to say "it's just water" is either gross ignorance, or lying. Maybe I should visit you and offer you a drink, with the assurance that you'll be fine because it's 99.5% water ;-)

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[Paltin]

Yawn

http://www.google.com/search?q=can+you+drink+fracking+fluid

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[Paltin]

I hear that gasoline is toxic, and we pump that into our cars, so we better ban cars, too.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[fnj]

Who do you pay to mod up your comments so quickly after posting each one?

Pssst. The secret is he doesn't post as a COWARD, you foul mouthed loser pimple on the ass of humanity. Get a clue. Sheesh.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[sribe]

I hear that gasoline is toxic, and we pump that into our cars, so we better ban cars, too.

Stupidest comment ever??? We did ban underground gasoline storage tanks which were prone to leakage, precisely because we didn't want it put into the ground.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[Paltin]

Underground gasoline storage tanks are banned????

I'd better go tell my every gas station in the US, they're got a problem!

As far as your claim that you can't quantify the risks, why don't you try and do so? Here's a hint: It's doable. There are several ways you can do it, either from a geology direction (Hint: what are the characteristics of a hydrocarbon reservoir?) or from a public safety direction (Perhaps deaths and injuries/year? It's not like we don't have a massive amount of field testing from the past two decades.... Just to be fair, do a comparison to a comparison to the technology that cheap gas is reducing, which is coal).

Let me know what you find out.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[sribe]

Underground gasoline storage tanks are banned????

Not all of them, just the type prone to leakage.

I'd better go tell my every gas station in the US, they're got a problem!

Well, as a matter of fact this was a problem for them. Many smaller stations that did marginal volume were forced out of business.

As far as your claim that you can't quantify the risks, why don't you try and do so? Here's a hint: It's doable. There are several ways you can do it, either from a geology direction (Hint: what are the characteristics of a hydrocarbon reservoir?) or from a public safety direction (Perhaps deaths and injuries/year? It's not like we don't have a massive amount of field testing from the past two decades.... Just to be fair, do a comparison to a comparison to the technology that cheap gas is reducing, which is coal).

OK, the question "stupid, or industry shill?" has been answered. There are problems with the industry's claims about the geology, and it's not all replacing coal.

You should note that I would not advocate for a ban, but rather much stricter oversight, which I'm sure you'll deride as unnecessary.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[Paltin]

Oh, no, I agree, there is evidence that oversight isn't strict enough. There are also questions about sourcing the water used for fracking, and of course concerns for what to do with waste afterwards; it is a much newer technology and regulation has clearly lagged behind because of it.

But the fact remains, when you pump water and soap 3000 ft below the surface, into an area where there is a reservoir, and you are worried about what it getting out... you sound like a paranoid anti-science ignoramus.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[Ol Olsoc]

The local economies are BOOMING in Canada with the wealth being distributed as all liberals in America wish it were here. Everyone is prospering and the fracking will continue for a very long time...they get more oil from a single drill point than traditional drilling...that is the point...less impact and cost and harm to the environment.

Proof that you have no idea what you are talkinng about. In My area - Pennsylvania, which until recently didn't even hav ean extraction fee, so there was a lot more reasons to frack here. Job boom? Most employees were "independent contractors, which means no health care, not HR type work, absolutely no benefits. A friend worked there as a geologist. Those booming gmanna from heaven economic benefits?

1. Driil the wells. Do it as quickly as possible.

2. leave town and go to the next state. About two or three years of job boom, the wells are in place. then it's back to the unemployment line. If you can collect unemployment as an independent contractor.

That booming economy and all those jobs are gone. In my area, we now have these nice little pads in the mountains at the drilling sites. It's not so bad looking. And they've fixed up some of the roads. But jobs? all went away whne th egas companies moved on.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[Ol Olsoc]

But the fact remains, when you pump water and soap 3000 ft below the surface, into an area where there is a reservoir, and you are worried about what it getting out... you sound like a paranoid anti-science ignoramus.

It's what that water come back out with that is a big problem. You think it comes back out as soap?

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[khallow]

Hint: what are the characteristics of a hydrocarbon reservoir?

Hints won't work here. One of the key characteristics of a hydrocarbon reservoir is that it keeps chemicals in one place. Else it wouldn't be a reservoir. These chemicals can be oil or they can be the less valuable fracking chemicals that drillers replace oil with.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[rtb61]

Fracking produces unpredictable fracturing of the ground and when you talking about tens of thousands of wells, avoiding mixing is impossible. Want the proof, quite fucking simple. That is exactly why the legislated to exempt fracking from water pollution controls. They knew 100% with out doubt they would be polluting the environment, they wanted the profits and to fuck over everyone else who has to clean up the mess.

Don't think so 'THEN WHY THE FUCKING LAWS GRANTING THE POLLUTION EXEMPTIONS FOR FRACKING'. Why would those corporations pay their political puppets to write those laws if they did not need the legal protections from the harm and damages they are causing.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[khallow]

I'm merely pointing out that reservoirs by their nature, hold things. When properly done, fracking (a procedure that is incidentally many decades old) isn't going to change that.

As I see it, the complaints about fracking chemicals leaking into water supplies are really complaints about drilling companies not following good procedure. In turn, that would mean regulatory agencies aren't enforcing existing regulation. I gather drillers who have taken short cuts have indeed caused some degree of damage over the decades. There's no reason to expect that those short cuts would be less damaging now than then.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[khallow]

It's what that water come back out with that is a big problem. You think it comes back out as soap?

Of course, we don't want that nasty oil. Why else would we be pumping it out of the ground as fast as we can?

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[SleazyRidr]

People get too hung up on the "chemicals" side of this. Sure, they put a few additives in there to keep it all flowing smoothly, but there's nothing to get excited about.

The problem with frakking is that we really don't have any way of predicting exactly where the rocks will fracture. You just pump water down there and hope for the best. If we can work out some way to analyse the structure and frack in such a way that we get the oil, but don't breach groundwater tables or the surface then we'll be golden. Until we can do that, though, it's not really safe enough to do on the scale we're currently seeing.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[Ol Olsoc]

It's what that water come back out with that is a big problem. You think it comes back out as soap?

Of course, we don't want that nasty oil. Why else would we be pumping it out of the ground as fast as we can?

That isn't what I'm talking about. In my area, there are many several acre ponds that hold the returned fracking fluid. It goes down as whatever it's composition, and comes back up as a very saline and whatever other elements are in that rock, brew. Not all of the stuff in the brew plays nice with living organisms.

I have no issue with th econcept of pumping gas and even fracking. But to just declare that we need this stuff, and if we have to destroy half the planet to get it is a really bad attitude. I could take you on tours of what coal mining has done to my area. Good land, destroyed, not ever to make anyone money as forest logging or Housing, or tourism. Streams that run orange, never to provide fsh to attract fishermen who will drive a local economy with tourism dollars.

Because when you take the "Energy uber alles, and fuck the rest of ya" approach, the end result is not money gained, but money lost.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[khallow]

In my area, there are many several acre ponds that hold the returned fracking fluid. It goes down as whatever it's composition, and comes back up as a very saline and whatever other elements are in that rock, brew.

Having nasty stuff in a few ponds (and which at some point can be pumped back underground to the reservoir in question) is not the same thing as "destroy half the planet".

Because when you take the "Energy uber alles, and fuck the rest of ya" approach, the end result is not money gained, but money lost.

That's not what's happening here. We happen to need oil and fracking happens to be a way to deliver it efficiently.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[khallow]

Most if not all the big companies are partly or wholly state owned.

Not in the US where fracking started.

This leads to an environment where the people become dependent on government hand outs (of cheap oil), diminishing incentive to seek alternative energy

Not true in the US or Europe. Oil products are taxed (very heavily in the case of Europe). And both spend large sums on alternative energy.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[Ol Olsoc]

Because when you take the "Energy uber alles, and fuck the rest of ya" approach, the end result is not money gained, but money lost.

That's not what's happening here. We happen to need oil and fracking happens to be a way to deliver it efficiently.

If you want to see what energy companies do when they are not held to the task, I could take you on an awesome tour of land permanently altered by these people. If we train astronauts for going to mars, there are large stretches that look very much like the red planet. Look out for the abandoned highwalls, and don't even drink the water. Some of the creeks, like the Red Moshannon, you'll be better off to use a fiberglass canoe. Aluminum ones get eaten, although they are shiny for a while. Water pH has been measured there at 3.3. Apple cider vinegar is between 4 and 5. You don't want to use the water on your salad though, because the acid is sulfuric. Don't worry about the effects on fish and water creatures though. They're long dead. The outrage created by the glory days of coal has been in large part mitigated, although the reclaimed land looks more like prarie than the forests that used to be there. The good news is that falcons have taken up in the reclaimed land. But you can not just assume that the land will be returned to a good state. We have to have a lot of oversight.

Need is one thing. Of course we need oil and gas. At some point though, we aren't supposed to destroy the land for everyone in the future. But fuck the fishermen, the hunters, the foresters, the real estate people, the farmers and the people that live there. As long as we have our oil, that is all that matters. Isn't it? But your comment was about oil fracking. Fracking is generally used to produce gas, not oil, and certainly is in this case. The present fracking efforts are mostly in the Marcellus shale. After that gas is extracted, the Utica shale is next. It's deeper and lies over a larger area. But they need to extract the stuff with an eye toward the environment. That should be interesting.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[khallow]

I was answering the question why we're pumping oil as fast as we can, not fracking specifically.

And I was pointing out that the US acts the same even though government isn't in charge. I also wanted to make the point that most of the world has little to do with OPEC governments.

The costs are just passed on to the consumers (the people).

And to the everyone else in the gasoline supply chain. Competion means you can't pass all of your costs on to the end consumer else you get undercut.

And much of that is wasted to enrich the government's friends rather than accomplishing results, as most government projects go. Of course, where does the government get all this money? From the people, and thus the people are chained to more taxes and fees.

So what? It's no different for those subsidies in oil production.

TL;DR version - your narrative needs work.

Re:Less methane? So fracking what?

[khallow]

The outrage created by the glory days of coal has been in large part mitigated

This has nothing to do with regulated oil production.

Of course we need oil and gas. At some point though, we aren't supposed to destroy the land for everyone in the future. But fuck the fishermen, the hunters, the foresters, the real estate people, the farmers and the people that live there.

Land owners do quite well. They get a piece of the action for oil wells on their land. And oil doesn't require a lot of real estate unlike surface mining of coal.

After that gas is extracted, the Utica shale is next. It's deeper and lies over a larger area.

So it's even more isolated from ground water.

But they need to extract the stuff with an eye toward the environment. That should be interesting.

Should be no difference. Environmental regulations have been around for a while.

Look people...

[Anonymous Coward]

...whether in the fracking or anti-fracking camp, both groups are in it regardless of the outcome or truth. There is no reasoning that is ever accepted today to end a matter. Everyone is out for himself. There is no integrity left anywhere in the world.

Re:Look people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this.

Fracking obviously comes with a short list of things that could be harmful. But these are things you can certainly mitigate, just as we do with everything else.

Rules like, "Ok fine, but you can't use [highly toxic substance] in the fluid." Not even at the ridiculously minimal concentrations it's normally used. Or, "Here are the steps that needs to be performed to minimize potential issues with methane..."

In a sane world, we'd just insist that those things are done, and go on with our lives.

Re:Whew! I'm so relieved

[Anonymous Coward]

solar and wind power aren't insane people set out to selfishly ruin the country.

Re:Whew! I'm so relieved

[bsane]

I would consider doing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbIe0iUtelQ to my house selfish.

Re:Whew! I'm so relieved

[polar red]

that's why when new wind turbines are put up, they are built hundreds of meters from buildings. There are rules and regulations for these now.

Drops in buckets

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

Gas has been flared in parts of Nigeria for over 40 years, 24/7/365. I've wondered how that stacks up against the more intensive drilling going on in NA. The energy industry does some remarkably odious things outside of the jurisdiction of the developed world.

I also see that plans are underway for Nigeria to reduce gas flaring to two per cent by 2014, and supposedly they've already gone from 30% in 2010 to only 11% now, so they're on their way to making this a moot point/non-issue - supposedly. I wonder how the rest of Nigeria's notoriously awful fossil fuel extraction is coming along, assuming this isn't all propaganda/lies.

Re:Whew! I'm so relieved

[nametaken]

Yeah, this seems like a simple enough problem to solve. Well, simple for new installations.

That video, which is the first I've ever seen on this, mentions that the location is about 1,000 ft (300m) away, but it looks like the distance needs to be greater than that.

Are NOAA and NASA The Only Ones Left?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from NOAA and NASA, can anyone name a federal agency that hasn't yet been purchased by private corporations? The FBI conducts raids for the MPAA and RIAA. The EPA is laughable. The FCC is run by telecoms. Our laws are delivered to our legislators by lobbyists. We know where the CIA gets a good chunk of its money from. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the NSA does whatever McAfee tells them to. What happened to a government that was supposed to represent people? It's nothing but a bunch of corporate interests now.

Re:Are NOAA and NASA The Only Ones Left?

[AlphaWolf_HK]

It basically sounds to me that you believe every government agency who doesn't toe the same line that you do clearly must be privately owned for that reason and that reason only.

Re:Are NOAA and NASA The Only Ones Left?

[oh_my_080980980]

Yeah because there's no proof that industry writes legislation that's passed in Congress *eye roll*...Google ALEC sometime....

Fracking (and related industries) are malicious!

[Crypto Gnome]

Here in Australia a recent report showed that Coal Seam Gas exploration in this country was waved past all the usual environmental checks-and-balances by over-eager Government departments promised literally thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue.

And when I say "waved past" for example there was a specific case of an "environmental impact study" which *completely dopped* an entire chapter (er, the only chapter) evaluating contamination of the water table, which (oddly enough) was actually THE PRIMARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN.

Time and time again we see The Industry just bypassing ALL concerns in the interest of "but but but we'll make bazillions in profit".

Let me say this clearly: UNBRIDLED GREED AND LACK OF CARE FOR THE FUTURE WILL MAKE THE ENVIRONMENT UNABLE TO SUSTAIN HUMAN LIFE.

Re:Whew! I'm so relieved

[russotto]

solar and wind power aren't insane people set out to selfishly ruin the country.

No, they're insane people set out to ruin the world for eminently altruistic reasons.

By "ruining the world" I don't mean the relatively benign side-effects of solar and wind power; I mean the power budget imposed upon the world by the concentration on those technologies over all else.

Re:Whew! I'm so relieved

[Intropy]

Last I heard the jury was still out on the earthquake issue. But if fracking does actually cause earthquakes that's an unintended benefit not cost. The amount of energy being put into the ground during fracking is minuscule. The energy released in a quake is already stored there, and it is going to come out via earthquake (or eruption if that avenue is available) eventually. It's generally less damaging to have more smaller earthquakes than fewer larger ones.

Don't flare, sell it.

[flyingfsck]

The gas producers have no reason to leak anything. The whole purpose of gas production is to sell it.

Re:Don't flare, sell it.

[wonkey_monkey]

The gas producers have no reason to leak anything.

They do if it's not worth their while fixing what to them may be a minor leak.

Re:Fracking (and related industries) are malicious

[flyingfsck]

Some people will complain about anything.

The coal seam gas is already down there. Taking it out can only REDUCE the contamination of the water table.

Ditto with the stupid complaints about producing oil from tar sands. The tar sand produciton in Canada is the world's lagest environmental cleanup operation, and people still complain.

Re:Biological Contributions

[AlamedaStone]

Let's just tax entropy.

I was going to suggest this but then I thought, nah fuck it.

How to write a bloody awful headline

[wonkey_monkey]

EPA Report That Lowers Methane-Leak Estimates Further Divides Fracking Camps

(EPA Report That Lowers Methane-Leak) Estimates (v.) Further Divides Fracking Camps - nope...
(EPA Report That Lowers Methane-Leak Estimates (n.) Further) Divides Fracking Camps - maybe...
(EPA Report That Lowers Methane-Leak Estimates (n.)) Further Divides Fracking Camps - could be that too...

You mean like the revised BP oil spill estimates

[oh_my_080980980]

Where the oil magically disappeared from the gulf.....

Re:Mission Conflict

[oh_my_080980980]

LMOL...EPA has been the pocket of industry for decades. Moron.